• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

ban cigarettes?

Total control over property was the same argument used to defend segregation.

Lets not make this about libertarian property issues. Lets make this about smoking. Its not that big of a deal.
 
Total control over property was the same argument used to defend segregation.

Lets not make this about libertarian property issues. Lets make this about smoking. Its not that big of a deal.

And if you will recall, it was liberal democrats who opposed desegregation so strongly...
 
Yes, liberal Democrats. George Wallace was a liberal. Do you read? Do you know what the Solid South or the Southern Strategy was? Why the Democrats lost the South?
 
Yes, liberal Democrats. George Wallace was a liberal. Do you read? Do you know what the Solid South or the Southern Strategy was? Why the Democrats lost the South?

Are we going to take a trip down the same road that led to me spanking you over flag codes? You know...the road marked Jallman Right, New Coup Wrong Way?
 
I can buy that the South was liberal in economic terms. The TVA was one of the biggest of any of the New Deal big government programs.

However, socially they were completely lock step in league with what we now call conservatives and what we now associate with the Republican party:

anti-multiculturalism (anti-integration initially, but now just anti Kwanazaesque crap)
anti-abortion
pro-Jesus
"family values"

The fact is the entire Republican political base that exists now was built through Nixon's appeal to the south on social issues, most prominantly integration. The cries of "States Rights" were then, as they often are now, a Republican code word for "we wont let those yankee's let the niggers have any more power".
 
I can buy that the South was liberal in economic terms. The TVA was one of the biggest of any of the New Deal big government programs.

However, socially they were completely lock step in league with what we now call conservatives and what we now associate with the Republican party:

anti-multiculturalism (anti-integration initially, but now just anti Kwanazaesque crap)
anti-abortion
pro-Jesus
"family values"

The fact is the entire Republican political base that exists now was built through Nixon's appeal to the south on social issues, most prominantly integration. The cries of "States Rights" were then, as they often are now, a Republican code word for "we wont let those yankee's let the niggers have any more power".

Kinda funny...this is what we see when we actually, I dunno, look at history...

September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

June 20, 1964 The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act

March 7, 1965 Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL

March 21, 1965 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose

August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

July 8, 1970 In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits

September 17, 1971 Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murders

February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

April 26, 1999 Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President

January 25, 2001 U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”

March 19, 2003 Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference

May 23, 2003 U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture

February 26, 2004 Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men...you all look alike to me”
 
"Don't know what they're talking about" wasn't your exact phrase, but you implied that the anti-smokers should take their noses away from people's businesses because they had never smoked, or had quit smoking. Implying that we're protecting your health to burn off our guilt wasn't exactly welcome, either.



It's not just nonsmokers who want to tell "everyone else" (at most a third of the population) what to do. Libertarians, as I have seen posted on the boards, believe that "the right to swing your arm ends at another person's face". I'm merely extending that, and have no idea why you think poisoning your children should be legal.
---
Hummm, I don't poison MY kids because no one smokes around them but if you have any bad kids or know of some bad kids send them here into my smoking room and i'll gas them out.
---
BTW::: I have no idea why its YOUR business what I do around MY kids!!!:roll:
---
:2wave: Your worse than Uncle Sam trying to put YOUR 'beliefs' of what I or anyone else should do with MY or THEIR KIDS!
---
How about YOU worry about YOUR kids and I and everyone else worry about OUR kids!!!:doh :roll:
 
---
Hummm, I don't poison MY kids because no one smokes around them but if you have any bad kids or know of some bad kids send them here into my smoking room and i'll gas them out.
---
BTW::: I have no idea why its YOUR business what I do around MY kids!!!:roll:
---
:2wave: Your worse than Uncle Sam trying to put YOUR 'beliefs' of what I or anyone else should do with MY or THEIR KIDS!
---
How about YOU worry about YOUR kids and I and everyone else worry about OUR kids!!!:doh :roll:

LOL......

I wish I could thank this post twice.
 
LOL......

I wish I could thank this post twice.

I thanked him for ya. Now who's going to thank him for me?:shock:
 
says the happily married man.

What does that have to do with it?

In my time in the military (drunk people everywhere) and in my current job, and being an alcoholic's son, I have NEVER seen one positive effect or benefit of alcohol.

Ive seen lots of fights, arguments, people doing dumb things and using the alcohol as an excuse, relationships getting thrown away, families torn apart, and people getting hurt, whether it be the innocent sober person or the drunk themselves.

Now tell me that cigarette use has the same capabilities.
 
I notice new coup 4 you has been awful silent since I buried him under a mountain of FACTS a page or so ago. hehehehe....
 
Yes, but studies indicate that the high amount of estrogen in our drinking water is leading to decreased sperm count rates in men. Also, estrogen can't be removed from the water supply through our normal filtration means in which we purify water for consumption; so the level continually grows.
Our water supply is not a closed loop system, so how do you figure that the conc. increases? Additionally we're also looking at just what sort of concentration we're needing to deal with here. Smaller municipalities can't afford to install purifications systems that rid of the pollutant as well as various other pharmaceutical agents including - ironically - Prozac. However larger municipalities do get rid of these agents using a complex of purification mechanisms. So there're left with 2 options - ban the uses of (highly unlikely) or upgrade municipal water systems to be able to deal with these pollutants should the source have concentrations higher than what is "safe".

Ikari said:
Well then it sounds like a job for responsible consumerism, not a job for the government. We got non-smoking establishments here in Ft. Collins before the ban because there was demand for non-smoking establishments. If there be demand, there will be business to pander to it. You affect it by being a responsible consumer, but if you aren't then that's hardly my fault nor should I be punished for it. While things like germs aren't illegal (you can't really make those illegal, BTW) and we have health regulations, they are there because there are certain things which are illegal. Serving rotten meat is illegal across the board. I couldn't serve it to people in my own home, if I did I could get sued. Poisoning food is illegal, and I can't do that in my own home either. There are regulations on eateries and such in order to ensure that these things which are easy to control on the individual basis aren't exacerbated when aggregated over the whole. But smoking is not illegal in the least, in fact it is a particular industry to which government itself is well addicted (a pack of cigarettes nets more money to the government than it does to the tobacco companies). While that is rather inconsequential (and I don't believe sin tax should be something we engage in), the fact remains that smoking is a legal activity and thus it falls upon the property owner to decide whether or not they will allow it on their property. It's not good for you, but you can choose not to go to those places. There is freedom in that, there is less freedom in using the government to infringe upon the property rights of the individual.
the rotten meat serving is illegal because it leads undeniably to health related issues. All eateries are regulated to satisfy health and safety codes. By the same token it's also undeniable that nicotine (an strong herbacide that is also lethal and absorbable through the skin to humans) also poses a health risk with absolutely 0 benefit to anyone whatsoever (bodily health not psychological). Drinking is not an illegal activity neither yet one can not have an open bottle while in any public area not to mention that drinking is also strictly regulated far more so than smoking is. Yet drinking only directly effects the individual whom is drinking rather than everyone else around. Someone sits right next to me to drink, it's all contained within their body and does not effect me (actions not pending). Yet someone whom sits next to me and smokes there's no way short of an exhaust fan in front of them to prevent that exhaust from affecting me.
Hence then why should a non-smoker have to compromise?
Thus it is within the might of the government to legislate smoking in establishments.
 
I benefit from being joyfully intoxicated

What does that have to do with it?

In my time in the military (drunk people everywhere) and in my current job, and being an alcoholic's son, I have NEVER seen one positive effect or benefit of alcohol.

Ive seen lots of fights, arguments, people doing dumb things and using the alcohol as an excuse, relationships getting thrown away, families torn apart, and people getting hurt, whether it be the innocent sober person or the drunk themselves.

Now tell me that cigarette use has the same capabilities.

Oh Caine, hast thou forgotten the old Egyptian proverb? We should never cease to make love, intoxicate ourselves, and celebrate the good times.

The direct effects of alchohol, the intoxication, is all the reward a person who isn't binge drinking like a moron is looking for. I enjoy that form of intoxication, like any other, its just chemicals in the brain, like the dopamine rush you get from a lover.

The benefits are the relaxing evenings after work with a glass of wine, or a happy hour drink with an old friend. It gives you an excuse to keep in touch, or meet up. There are lots of benefits to engaging said sociable intoxication.

Just like all things, it should be taken in moderation, and you shouldn't let the bad apples spoil the bunch. You're right that cigarettes aren't as harmful, but they're still very harmful, a major killer, all for the sake of another kind of buzz.
 
I think people should have a right to kill themselves if they so choose, but that right should not infringe on other peoples right to stay alive and healthy. Therefore smoking in private or in a special closed-atmosphere chamber is fine, but in public it should be banned outright.

An EMT told me there was a case recently where a smoker had a heart-attack and collapsed on the floor of a special smoking lounge in an airport. When he got there and began emergency procedures, he asked people to stop smoking while he was working, but every smoker there refused. He had to haul the cardiac arrest patient out of the smoking room before he was able to provide care. I say lock smokers in a closed room and let them kill themselves. Just keep the door locked.
 
Back
Top Bottom